DOCSLIB.ORG

Targeted Killings**

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Targeted Killings** United Nations A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 General Assembly Distr.: General 28 May 2010 English only Human Rights Council Fourteenth session Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston* Addendum Study on targeted killings** Summary In recent years, a few States have adopted policies that permit the use of targeted killings, including in the territories of other States. Such policies are often justified as a necessary and legitimate response to “terrorism” and “asymmetric warfare”, but have had the very problematic effect of blurring and expanding the boundaries of the applicable legal frameworks. This report describes the new targeted killing policies and addresses the main legal issues that have arisen. * Late submission. ** Owing to time constraints, the present report is circulated as received, in the language of submission only. GE.10-13753 A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 Contents Paragraphs Page I. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1–6 3 II. Background............................................................................................................ 7–27 4 A. Definition of “targeted killing” ..................................................................... 7–10 4 B. New targeted killing policies ........................................................................ 11–26 5 C. New technology............................................................................................. 27 9 III. Legal issues............................................................................................................ 28–92 9 A. The applicable legal frameworks and basic rules.......................................... 28–36 9 B. Sovereignty issues and States’ invocation of the right to self-defence ......... 37–45 12 C. The existence and scope of armed conflict ................................................... 46–56 15 D. Who may lawfully be targeted, when, and on what basis ............................. 57–69 19 E. Who may conduct a targeted killing ............................................................. 70–73 21 F. The use of less-than-lethal measures............................................................. 74–78 22 G. The use of drones for targeted killing............................................................ 79–86 24 H. The requirements of transparency and accountability................................... 87–92 26 IV. Conclusions and recommendations........................................................................ 93 27 2 A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 I. Introduction 1. A targeted killing is the intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force, by States or their agents acting under colour of law, or by an organized armed group in armed conflict, against a specific individual who is not in the physical custody of the perpetrator. In recent years, a few States have adopted policies, either openly or implicitly, of using targeted killings, including in the territories of other States. 2. Such policies have been justified both as a legitimate response to “terrorist” threats and as a necessary response to the challenges of “asymmetric warfare.” In the legitimate struggle against terrorism, too many criminal acts have been re-characterized so as to justify addressing them within the framework of the law of armed conflict. New technologies, and especially unarmed combat aerial vehicles or “drones”, have been added into this mix, by making it easier to kill targets, with fewer risks to the targeting State. 3. The result of this mix has been a highly problematic blurring and expansion of the boundaries of the applicable legal frameworks – human rights law, the laws of war, and the law applicable to the use of inter-state force. Even where the laws of war are clearly applicable, there has been a tendency to expand who may permissibly be targeted and under what conditions. Moreover, the States concerned have often failed to specify the legal justification for their policies, to disclose the safeguards in place to ensure that targeted killings are in fact legal and accurate, or to provide accountability mechanisms for violations. Most troublingly, they have refused to disclose who has been killed, for what reason, and with what collateral consequences. The result has been the displacement of clear legal standards with a vaguely defined licence to kill, and the creation of a major accountability vacuum. 4. In terms of the legal framework, many of these practices violate straightforward applicable legal rules. To the extent that customary law is invoked to justify a particular interpretation of an international norm, the starting point must be the policies and practice of the vast majority of States and not those of the handful which have conveniently sought to create their own personalized normative frameworks. It should be added that many of the justifications for targeted killings offered by one or other of the relevant States in particular current contexts would in all likelihood not gain their endorsement if they were to be asserted by other States in the future. 5. This report describes the publicly available information about new targeted killing policies and addresses the main legal issues that have arisen. It identifies areas in which legal frameworks have been clearly violated or expanded beyond their permissible limits; where legal issues are unclear, it suggests approaches which would enable the international community to return to a normative framework that is consistent with its deep commitment to protection of the right to life, and the minimization of exceptions to that constitutive principle. 6. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to Hina Shamsi of the Project on Extrajudicial Executions at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York University School of Law, for her superb assistance in the preparation of this report. He is also grateful to Sarah Knuckey for her comments, and Nishant Kumar and Anna De Courcy Wheeler for research assistance. 3 A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 II. Background A. Definition of “targeted killing” 7. Despite the frequency with which it is invoked, “targeted killing” is not a term defined under international law. Nor does it fit neatly into any particular legal framework. It came into common usage in 2000, after Israel made public a policy of “targeted killings” of alleged terrorists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.1 The term has also been used in other situations, such as: • The April 2002 killing, allegedly by Russian armed forces, of “rebel warlord” Omar Ibn al Khattab in Chechnya.2 • The November 2002 killing of alleged al Qaeda leader Ali Qaed Senyan al-Harithi and five other men in Yemen, reportedly by a CIA-operated Predator drone using a Hellfire missile.3 • Killings in 2005 – 2008 by both Sri Lankan government forces and the opposition LTTE group of individuals identified by each side as collaborating with the other.4 • The January 2010 killing, in an operation allegedly carried out by 18 Israeli Mossad intelligence agents, of Mahmoud al-Mahbouh, a Hamas leader, at a Dubai hotel.5 According to Dubai officials, al-Mahbouh was suffocated with a pillow; officials released videotapes of those responsible, whom they alleged to be Mossad agents.6 8. Targeted killings thus take place in a variety of contexts and may be committed by governments and their agents in times of peace as well as armed conflict, or by organized armed groups in armed conflict.7 The means and methods of killing vary, and include sniper fire, shooting at close range, missiles from helicopters, gunships, drones, the use of car bombs, and poison.8 1 Infra, section II.B. Orna Ben-Naftali & Keren Michaeli, We Must Not Make a Scarecrow of the Law: A Legal Analysis of the Israeli Policy of Targeted Killings, 36 Cornell Int’l L.J. 233, 234 (2003). Although this report uses the common terms “terrorism” and “terrorist”, I agree with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism that the continuing lack of a “universal, comprehensive and precise” definition of these terms hampers the protection of human rights, E/CN.4/2006/98, para. 50, and in particular, the right to life. The work of the Ad Hoc Committee established under GA Res. 51/210 to work on a draft convention on international terrorism is critical and urgent. 2 BBC, Russia ‘Kills’ Chechen Warlord, 25 April 2002. 3 Jane Mayer, The Predator War, The New Yorker, 26 Oct. 2009; Greg Miller, C.I.A. Said to Use Outsiders to Put Bombs on Drones, LA Times, 13 Feb. 2009. 4 A/HRC/8/3/Add.3, para. 12. 5 Targeted Killing in Dubai: A Mossad Operation Gone Awry?, Der Spiegel, 23 Feb. 2010; Ilene Prusher, Was Mossad Behind Dubai Assassination? Israel Foreign Minister Isn’t Saying, Christian Science Monitor, 17 Feb. 2010. 6 Targeted Killing in Dubai: A Mossad Operation Gone Awry?, Der Spiegel, 23 Feb. 2010. Other examples of Israeli targeted killings include: Crimes of War Project, Case Study: The Israeli Strike Against Hamas Leader Salah Shehadeh. available at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/print/onnews/Shehadeh-print.html. 7 This report focuses only on killings by States and their agents because, as yet, no non-state actors have sought to justify specific “targeted killings.” 8 See, fns. 2-6; B’Tselem, Statistics: Fatalities,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GEORGES V UNITED NATIONS Resolving UN Torts in US Courts DOROTHEA ANTHONY*
    RESOLVING UN TORTS IN US COURTS: GEORGES v UNITED NATIONS Resolving UN Torts in US Courts DOROTHEA ANTHONY* This article concerns the recent case of Georges v United Nations, which constitutes, to date, the most elaborate public law challenge to the principle of UN immunity from suit and private law attempt at procuring compensation from the UN for alleged malfeasance. Despite the fact that it relates to people and events in Haiti, the case was brought by United States lawyers on behalf of US plaintiffs, was decided by US courts, used the US-style class action method, called for reparations of US proportions and was intervened in by the US government. The article addresses how the US legal culture of expansionism, litigiousness and charity have influenced the case. It asks whether, in drawing on this culture, the US legal system has overextended its extraterritorial engagement in international and foreign affairs. CONTENTS I Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 II Litigation with US Characteristics ............................................................................ 4 III On the Crest of a New Wave .................................................................................... 9 IV A Foundation in US Legal Culture ......................................................................... 12 A Expansionism ............................................................................................. 12 B Litigiousness ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download HRW-Letter to President Juan Manuel Santos
    HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C., October 25, 2012 Washington, DC 20009 Tel: 202-612-4321 Fax: 202-612-4333; 202-478-2988 Juan Manuel Santos Email: [email protected] President of the Republic of Colombia Casa de Nariño Americas Division Bogotá, D.C., Colombia José Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director Daniel Wilkinson, Managing Director Tamara Taraciuk, Researcher Nik Steinberg, Researcher Dear Mr. President: Max Schoening, Researcher Stephanie Morin, Researcher Mariana Dambolena, Associate Sylvie Stein, Associate I am writing to express my deep concern with the constitutional Advisory Committee amendment your administration is currently promoting to expand the Lloyd Axworthy, Chair Marina Pinto Kaufman, Vice Chair scope of military jurisdiction. The latest version of the proposed Julien Studley, Vice Chair 1 Roberto Alvarez amendment would result in serious human rights violations by the Cynthia Arnson Carlos Basombrio military—including extrajudicial executions, torture, and rape—being Peter D. Bell Marcelo Bronstein investigated and tried by the military justice system, in direct conflict Paul Chevigny John Dinges with the jurisprudence by Colombia’s high courts and the Inter- Denise Dresser 2 Tom J. Farer American Court of Human Rights. In our view, the amendment is Myles Frechette Alejandro Garro unjustified. Its passage would virtually guarantee impunity for Peter Hakim Ronald G. Hellman military atrocities. Furthermore, it would cause Colombia to fail to Stephen L. Kass Andy Kaufman comply with human rights conditions for U.S. military aid, which Susanna Leval Kenneth Maxwell require that all alleged human rights violations by the armed forces Jocelyn McCalla Robert Pastor “are promptly referred to civilian jurisdiction for investigation and Bruce Rabb 3 Michael Shifter prosecution.” George Soros Rose Styron Javier Timerman Horacio Verbitsky I.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:15-Cv-01954-CM Document 46 Filed 10/03/15 Page 1 of 50
    Case 1:15-cv-01954-CM Document 46 Filed 10/03/15 Page 1 of 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ................................................................................ x AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION and THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs, v. 15 Civ. 1954 (CM) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, including its components the OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL and OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, and CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendants. ................................................................................ x CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 1:15-cv-01954-CM Document 46 Filed 10/03/15 Page 2 of 50 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................2 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5 I. THE DEFENDANT AGENCIES AND COMPONENTS CONDUCTED REASONABLE SEARCHES..................................................................................7 II. THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION ARE EXEMPT FROM DISC LOSURE UNDER FOIA ................................................11 A. The Government
    [Show full text]
  • Extreme Poverty and Human Rights on His Mission to the United States of America
    United Nations A/HRC/38/33/Add.1 General Assembly Distr.: General 4 May 2018 Original: English Human Rights Council Thirty-eighth session 18 June–6 July 2018 Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on his mission to the United States of America Note by the Secretariat The Secretariat has the honour to transmit to the Human Rights Council the report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, on his mission to the United States of America from 1 to 15 December 2017. The purpose of the visit was to evaluate, and report to the Human Rights Council on, the extent to which the Government’s policies and programmes aimed at addressing extreme poverty are consistent with its human rights obligations and to offer constructive recommendations to the Government and other stakeholders. GE.18-07152(E) A/HRC/38/33/Add.1 Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on his mission to the United States of America* Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 II. Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 3 III. Human rights dimension ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Council Holds Final Interactive Dialogue with Philipp Alston
    Human Rights Council holds final interactive dialogue with Philipp Alston http://www.ishr.ch/council-news/782-human-rights-council-holds-final-... Human Rights Council holds final interactive dialogue with Philipp Alston Last Updated on Thursday, 10 June 2010 The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Mr Philip Alston, presented his annual report (A/HRC/14/24) to the Human Rights Council on 3 June 2010, together with three thematic reports, a communications report, follow up reports on missions to Brazil and the Central African Republic, reports on missions to Colombia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and a preliminary report on his mission to Albania. This session represents the end of Mr Alston’s tenure of the mandate. On the initiative of the Special Rapporteur, the Council held a minute of silence in memory of Mr Floribert Chebeya Bahizire , the Executive Director of the NGO ‘Voix des sans Voix’ from the DRC, whom Mr Alston met during his country visit in October 2009. Mr Alston considered the circumstances of the killing of Mr Chebeya to ’strongly suggest official responsibility’. In his closing remarks, Mr Alston advised the Council to respond to Mr Bahizire’s death with creativity, given the DRC’s harsh reaction to his report. He suggested that forensic support provided to the Congolese authorities without strong formal involvement of the Council might allay fears of ‘intervention’ in the sovereignty of the DRC. In a right of reply on 9 June 2010, the DRC announced that the director of the police force had been suspended, and that four forensic doctors from the Netherlands would be joining the chief prosecutor to carry out an autopsy.
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Philip Alston Special Rapporteur Office of the High Commission for Human Rights Palais Des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland
    | 1400 Eye Street NW, Suite 650 | Washington, DC 20005 | T: 202.657.0670 | F: 202.657.0671 | www.firstfocus.org | Professor Philip Alston Special Rapporteur Office of the High Commission for Human Rights Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland Re: Visit to the United States (4-15 December 2017) October 4, 2017 Dear Professor Alston: On behalf of First Focus, a bipartisan children’s advocacy organization dedicated to making children and families a priority in federal budget decisions, we welcome the opportunity to provide input on issues relating to child poverty and children’s rights in the United States. Defining Poverty and Extreme Poverty The United States Census Bureau defines poverty by using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family, size, and composition. If a family’s income is lower than the threshold set annually then they are deemed to be living in poverty. In 2016, the poverty threshold for a family of four was $24,339. There is also a Supplemental Poverty Measure that takes into account the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals who are not included in the official poverty measure. These programs include refundable tax credits, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Social Security, Housing subsidies, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), The National School Lunch Program (NSLP), Supplementary Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the Low Income Heating Assistance Program. Extreme poverty is measured by individuals living below 50% of the poverty line, which would be just over $12,000 a year for a family of four.
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism
    Journal of Strategic Security Volume 2 Number 2 Volume 2, No. 2: May 2009 Article 1 Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism Thomas Byron Hunter Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the Portfolio and Security Analysis Commons pp. 1-52 Recommended Citation Hunter, Thomas Byron. "Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 2, no. 2 (2010) : 1-52. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.2.2.1 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol2/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Strategic Security by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism Abstract This paper assesses the parameters and utility of “targeted killing” in combating terrorism and its role within the norm of state self-defense in the international community. The author’s thesis is that, while targeted killing provides states with a method of combating terrorism, and while it is “effective” on a number of levels, it is inherently limited and not a panacea. The adoption and execution of such a program brings with it, among other potential pitfalls, political repercussions. Targeted killing is defined herein as the premeditated, preemptive, and intentional killing of an individual or individuals known or believed to represent a present and/or future threat to the safety and security of a state through affiliation with terrorist groups or individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump Turning US Into 'World Champion of Extreme Inequality', UN Envoy Warns
    Trump turning US into 'world champion of extreme inequality', UN envoy warns Special rapporteur Philip Alston, fresh from fact-finding tour, issues devastating critique of US society and condemns 'private wealth and public squalor' The Guardian, by Ed Pilkington, Washington, December 15, 2017 12:45 p.m. EST The United Nations monitor on poverty and human rights has issued a devastating report on the condition of America, accusing Donald Trump and the Republican leadership in Congress of attempting to turn the country into the "world champion of extreme inequality". Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, has completed a two-week official tour of the US by releasing an excoriating attack on the direction of the nation. Not only does he warn that the tax bill currently being rushed through Congress will hugely increase already large disparities between rich and poor, he accuses Trump and his party of consciously distorting the shape of American society in a "bid to become the most unequal society in the world". "American exceptionalism was a constant theme in my conversations," he writes. "But instead of realizing its founders' admirable commitments, today's United States has proved itself to be exceptional in far more problematic ways that are shockingly at odds with its immense wealth and its founding commitment to human rights. As a result, contrasts between private wealth and public squalor abound." In his most stark message, Alston warns that the Republicans' declared intent to slash crucial welfare programs next year in order to pay for some of the $1.Stn tax cuts could cost American lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Just & Unjust Targeted Killing & Drone Warfare
    Just & Unjust Targeted Killing & Drone Warfare Michael Walzer Abstract: Targeted killing in the “war on terror” and in war generally is subject to familiar and severe moral constraints. The constraints hold across the board; they don’t change when drones are the weapon of choice. But the ease with which drones can be used, the relative absence of military risks and political costs, makes it especially tempting not only to use drones more and more, but also to relax the constrain- ing rules under which they are used. It seems clear that the rules have, in fact, been relaxed in the course of the American experience with drone warfare–by presidential decision and without public debate. This essay is an argument for the opening up of the decision process to democratic scrutiny and in defense of the familiar constraints. It is always a hard question whether new technolo- gies require the revision of old arguments. Targeted killing isn’t new, and I am going to repeat an old ar- gument about it. But targeted killing with drones? Here the old argument, though it still makes sense, leaves me uneasy. First things first. Untargeted killing, random kill- ing, the bomb in the supermarket, café, or bus station: we call that terrorism, and its condemnation is criti- cally important. No qualifications, no excuses: this is MICHAEL WALZER , a Fellow of wrongfulness of the first order. We need to be firm in the American Academy since 1971, is Professor Emeritus of Social Sci- rejecting all apologetic efforts on behalf of terrorists. ence at the Institute for Advanced But someone who takes aim at a particular person, a Study.
    [Show full text]
  • EASO Country of Origin Information Report Pakistan Security Situation
    European Asylum Support Office EASO Country of Origin Information Report Pakistan Security Situation October 2018 SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION European Asylum Support Office EASO Country of Origin Information Report Pakistan Security Situation October 2018 More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). ISBN: 978-92-9476-319-8 doi: 10.2847/639900 © European Asylum Support Office 2018 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, unless otherwise stated. For third-party materials reproduced in this publication, reference is made to the copyrights statements of the respective third parties. Cover photo: FATA Faces FATA Voices, © FATA Reforms, url, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Neither EASO nor any person acting on its behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained herein. EASO COI REPORT PAKISTAN: SECURITY SITUATION — 3 Acknowledgements EASO would like to acknowledge the Belgian Center for Documentation and Research (Cedoca) in the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, as the drafter of this report. Furthermore, the following national asylum and migration departments have contributed by reviewing the report: The Netherlands, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office for Country Information and Language Analysis Hungary, Office of Immigration and Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Office Documentation Centre Slovakia, Migration Office, Department of Documentation and Foreign Cooperation Sweden, Migration Agency, Lifos
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Killings
    Published on How does law protect in war? - Online casebook (https://casebook.icrc.org) Home > Targeted killings The intentional and pre-meditated use of lethal force, by a State or organized armed group against a specific individual outside their physical custody. Targeted killings occur both within and outside of armed conflicts [1]. Under IHL, they are problematic as, oftentimes, those targeted are geographically far removed from hostilities, and/or not necessarily directly participating in hostilities [2] at the time they are targeted. In the context of the war on terror [3], targeted killings against suspected terrorists [4], including “unlawful combatants [5]”, have occurred regularly. Drones [6] are frequently relied on to undertake such killings. See Armed conflict [1]; Unlawful combatants [5]; War on terror [3]; Drones [6]; Terrorism and terrorists [4]. CASES Israel, The Targeted Killings Case [7] UN, Statement of a Special Rapporteur on Drone Attacks [8] General Assembly, The use of drones in counter-terrorism operations [9] U.S., Lethal Operations against Al-Qa’ida Leaders [10] United States of America, The Death of Osama bin Laden [11] ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2015 [12] (Paras. 60-64 [13]) Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS [14] BIBLIOGRAPHIC RESOURCES JACKSON Jami Melissa, “The Legality of Assassination of Independent Terrorist Leaders: an Examination of National and International Implications”, in North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, Vol. 24/3, 1999, pp. 669-697. KRETZMER David, “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or Legitimate Means of Defence?”, in EJIL, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles Against Executions
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 1990 Principles against Executions David Weissbrodt University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Terri Rosen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David Weissbrodt and Terri Rosen, Principles against Executions, 13 HAMLINE L. REV. 579 (1990), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/364. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRINCIPLES AGAINST EXECUTIONSt Professor David Weissbrodt* Terri Rosen** I. INTRODUCTION The right to be free from extra-legal, arbitrary, or summary ex- ecutions is recognized in a number of international human rights in- struments. Such killings violate article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,' which provides that "every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."2 Although international organizations have developed procedures and remedies in response to extra-legal, arbitrary, and summary killings,' executions continue to occur in many countries. These killings include: (1) political assassina- tions; (2) deaths resulting from torture or ill-treatment in prison or de- t An abbreviated version of this article was published in Amnesty International-USA Legal Support Network Newsletter, Vol. 5, No. 3, Fall/Winter 1988. * Briggs & Morgan Professor of Law, University of Minnesota School of Law.
    [Show full text]